tv [untitled] November 29, 2012 9:00pm-9:30pm PST
as worded with an additional recommendation for a blanket denial to formula retail and also i think that we definitely should amend it as well to allow for nightclub owners. because that is totally, there should be no objection from the restaurateurs that are closed at 10:00 for someone who wants to operate for nightclub business. i think they should absolutely be allowed to do that. i can second that. i would like to ask the commissioners' feelings, would it be possible to try -- in order to get the economic activity that mobile food trucks may be able to bring to an area, would it be possible to make life a little bit more easier and maybe affect their bottom line in terms of what costs are if we could incentive and go into area has we identify as could really be
helped? i can just give you -- i will tell you right now that i own a building that is in an area that most people would consider to be a stressed area along the 3rd street corridor. and i have a vacant commercial space there and i invited starbucks to come in there and said absolutely no way, because they are not interested. which put me off a little bit. because there are other partners involved and they are not as worried about starbucks or formula retail, but then having said that, i would love to see if we were able to incentivize for mobile truck operators to come into areas that would make life easier for them and they looked at the bottom line and said if we can get into business next month, maybe we can bring traffic to this area? can i make a recommendation to
look at that as a third idea put forward with this? >> to fast-track? >> fast-tracking or something and look into that. >> i think what i would like to do is have -- i mean, one, that would require some budgetary requirement. because to do a study and an analysis to that would require some money for somebody to do research and analysis into those areas. i would have to research as to whether the city would provide that funding to be able to do that. as you know, our budget doesn't allow for those kinds of things. >> so you think it's maybe an idea to look at down the road,
but not to be include here? >> i think, if the 50' element moves through, i think my sense is one would have to see what the result of that is. it may push -- that restriction may push mobile food operators to take a look at other areas that they may not have considered. i don't know. it's something that i can ask and see if there is money there to do an economic sort of study and analysis, but we might just want to see what the outcomes are after this legislation moves through. >> okay. well, sorry. >> i have a comment and question regarding commissioner dooley's recommendation about after 10:00 that it be allowed. i am hesitant to put it as a
blanket on this legislation rather than to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. because in addition, to the nightclub and restaurants you also have property owners and residents in that area that we might need to consider. >> we could amend it to say that it would be waived adjacent to night clubs. i'm not quite sure what would be the best way to word it? >> i think we're just trying to say that the restrictions there to protect brick-and-mortar businesses because they are losing businesses, it won't apply to them in the after-hours, so an amendment to make it easier for them to get a permit to operate after-hours. >> i am not disagreeing with that. i don't know whether or not we should put in into a blanket statement in this legislation issue? >> first off, if there is
after-hours, the criteria after-hours of a mobile food vendor wants to operate, there is a more stringent noticing requirement. so with that idea of residential combined, but may i make a recommendation, since supervisor wiener is sort of in discussion with entertainment commission, maybe your recommendation is that perhaps the recommendation is that you would be sensitive and encourage supervisor wiener to work something out along those lines unless you want it re-referred back to you to be heard? am i making sense on that? >> yes. >> just to to say that you might want to just indicate your support of what supervisor wiener would work out with the entertainment commission, if that is the direction you would want to go. >> i think that makes more
sense. >> chris, could you read that back? >> before you read that back, director dick-endrizzi, do you have another comment? okay. commiss. chris. >> one moment, please. commissioners i have a motion from commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120193 recommendation that there be a ban on you all former retail food trucks and to accommodate the location in the vicinity of nightlife businesses that may be located within a proximity of brick-and-mortar restaurants that may be closed after a certain hour. >> yes, good. >> does that accurately reflect it? >> yes. that motion is from commissioner dooley and i
believe commissioner o'brien seconded. would you like to move forward with roll call? >> yes. >> commissioner adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. >> commissioner dwight absent. commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner [rao*-eurl/]? yee riley? >> yes. >> that passes 6-0. >> >> next one, this is item no. 11. >> i move that we recommend this. >> would you like me to summarize what this does? >> yes. >> this is the ordinance that would establish mobile food facilities on private property within postsecondary
institutions and medical institutions located in residential districts. >> yes. i second that. >> commissioners we have a motion from commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120125, seconded by commissioner o'brien. mr. president, would you like a roll call (yes. >> president adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. >> commissioner dwight is absent. commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> e. >> commissioners, that motion passes 6-0. >> thank you everybody. >> commissioners we now back to item 7, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 120796 planning code establishing the
divasdero street neighborhood commercial district. we have stephanie tucker legislative aide to supervisor oleague. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm stephanie tucker with supervisor olague's office. i don't know if you have any questions or if you would like me to go into detail about exactly what is being proposed? essentially on divasdero from that is right o'farrell street it's zoned. a few months ago a conversation was started with the divasdero merchants on a named commercial district and this is the fruition of that discussion. essentially it doesn't change any of the existing
restrictions around alcohol use. but it does allow -- it allows for -- the way it is now, properties along divasdero nc 2 bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters and other entertainment and trade shops are prohibited on the second floor, which is standard for nc 2 zoning. and currently the nc 2 [#2*-/] districts have a minimum parking controls that are outlined in balancing code section 15 1, can would also not be affected about the named commercial district and this would be changed to create a named commercial district along divasdero from haight to o'farrell street. it would institute a maximum
parking controls within the divasdero ncd outlined in section 151.1, which is the same parking controls that are currently in place and it would remove the divasdero alcohol restricted district, but preserve the prohibition on new liquor stores in ncd. and it would maintain the prohibition on fringe financial services in the proposed divasdero street ncd and provides a 5' height bonus for properties zoned 4-x along divasdero street. there are only two blocks on this stretch of divasdero street which is haight to oak. they are zoned 40-x. the rest of the blocks are zoned 65-x and would not be
impacted by these provisions. so we are before you today to ask for your approval and recommendation so that question move this on. >> great. >> thank you. >> do we have any commissioner comments? do we have any public comment on item no. 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion on item 7 or any other commissioner comments? >> i move that we recommend moving this forward. >> do we have a second? >> i will second. >> roll call? >> yes. >> commissioners there is a motion by commissioner dooley and seconded by commissioner ortiz-cartagena. to recommend approval of board of supervisors file no. 120796,
on that motion, commission adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. commissioner dwight is absent. commissioner," ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien is absent. commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> yes. >> commissioners that passes 5-0. >> okay item 8 discussion and possible action to make recommendations to board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 120814 planning code establishing the fillmore street neighborhood-commercial district and we're joined once again by stephanie tucker, legislative aide to supervisor christi olague. >> welcome. >> if we could continue this item until the second week of december. we would like to have one more meeting with the merchants so we can discuss the controls and make sure that community is on
board with what is presented here today. >> our next meeting is december 10th. >> perfect. >> that would be perfect >> do we have public comment on item no. 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion then to continue this to december 10th meeting? >> i move. >> second. >> roll call. >> i didn't catch who made the motion? >> commissioner yee riley. >> okay. >> seconded by commissioner white. commissioners, we have a motion by commissioner yee riley and seconded by commissioner white to continue board of supervisors file no. 120814 to the december 10th meeting on that motion roll call? >> yes. >> commissioner adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. >> commissioner dwight is
absent. commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien, absent. commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> yes. >> commissioners that motion passes 5-0 and that item will be calendared at your december 10th meeting >> thank you so much commissioners, have a great day. >> thank you. e. next item commissioners your item no. 12 discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 121064 business and tax regulations, police codes, parking stations, revenue control equipment, licensing regulations, parking tax bonds, administrative citation process. you have a presentation by mr. greg kato, tax and treasurer's office and there kato is making the presentation at the request of supervisor campos' office. >> thank you, welcome >> thank you for your patience. >> thank you. good afternoon.
the legislation before you today amends the business and tax regulations code with regard to enforcing the parking tax. our office would like to thank supervisor campos for carrying that legislation. this follows on the efforts of former supervisors mcgoldrick, dufty >> the parking tax is pretty significant tax for san francisco. it collects a little over $70 million a year in taxes. most of that is appropriated to the mta for transit programs, and so it's a very important tax. the legislation specifically amends how parking bonds are treated. parking bonds are required of operators to protect the city's interest and provide security for the taxes that the operator
holds prior to remitting them to the city. so what happens is when you or i go and park in a parking lot, and we make a payment, we're actually paying the tax at that time. and the operator holds onto that and remit it's a month later. since those operators are holding onto those tax dollars on behalf of the city, we do require some security for that. currently there are seven different levels of bonding required based on how much gross receipt yours operation may have. what we heard back from the park administration after this change was made in late 2010 and instituted in 2011 these were very large bans and in many cases if you had a small increase in your revenues, you could see a doubling of your bonding requirement. so for instance an operator who just had under $1 million in receipts from one
year that moved to just over $1 million in receipts the following year would have a doubling of their bond from $200,000 to $400,000. so the proposed legislation makes this a $50,000 increase and we made smaller bonds so you don't have quite the jumps. in addition, this legislation does provide for reduced bonding requirements for operators that have a strong track record of tax compliance. and, in fact reducing that bonding requirement by half. so that same operator that had the $200,000 requirement would have a $100,000 requirement if they were to qualify. what this does is makes sure that we are protecting the city's money, but also not that we are providing? incentive for those folks who are good operators
and strong operators. we did an analysis and found approximately half of the current 650 operations in the city would be potentially eligible for this, if it were to move forward. and finally with regarding to bonds, this makes some clarification as to what the surety's rights and obligations. the surety is the entity that issues the bond to the operator. and they do have rights and obligations when they issue that bond. so we made some clarifications to that. in addition, this legislation make changes to how administrative cite rations are handled. administrative citations are the tax collector's equivalent of a parking ticket. these are when an operator has something that is out of compliance, an investigator or compliance officer can go out and issue a citation. however, the process for having a hearing and contesting the citation is kind of convoluted as currently written. so we
have simplified this administrative citation process and also provided the opportunity for a hearing by mail. this is similar to how the city handles park tickets. persons who receive a citation will have the opportunity to request a in-person hearing if they choose, but this will be a much simpler process where the tax collector doesn't have to name a hearing officer and go through the whole process and instead they have 30 days to contest and they can actually -- the operator can actually contest by mail. finally, we do have some clarifications as to what the requirements are for government entities other than the city when they operate a parking location for themselves. this does not apply to third party operates that are contracted by government entities. and the large reason for this is that if a government entity has costs of compliance, they may be able to deduct that from
the taxes that they remit to the city. so we found we would much rather have them remit the taxes rather than deduct the cost of compliance. >> any commissioner comments? commissioner ortiz? >> thank you. this is amazing legislation. i think it will really help small business. i had a couple of questions. if a school, let's say, everett during gay pride and awful, that they have parking. they do it themselves. are they required to go through the process of getting the permits and everything, even it's a one-day use? >> you are talking about like a san francisco unified school district? >> yes. >> there was prior legislation that handled this issue, where if there is a completely volunteer-run operation, that is on a san francisco unified school site, they may get a
permit through the pta in order to operate and they are not required to go through the certificate of authority, the police permitting process. they have a process where essentially they work with the pta and then they are issued a day-use permit. >> okay. and one more question. regarding at the valet component, valet operators obviously service hotels and restaurants and i saw the immediate closure of denial of a business to get a coa to the bond. prior to the bond coverage being expired or terminate at least the business operator services, restaurant xyz has an operator, and they are not being compliant. so the operator of the restaurant next day doesn't have valet sun affected. and is affected. is there any way to implement
prior notification to the operator that their subcontractor is not going to be issued a coa through the bond issue? >> you are talking about how it currently is? >> yes. >> i would like to talk to you about situations where you feel there has been one-day notice for closure. i know that our parking enforcement folks do work hard and work overtime with operators in order to help them understand the obligations under the law. and i have not -- i'm not aware of any situation that you have one day's notice, but certainly happy to hear feedback if that has been the case or perceived to be the case. what we do have right now is that after an operator submits their certificate of authority, the treasurer tax collector has 45 days to respond and typically we have
an iterative process with operators in order that they understand the obligations that they are complying. if you are indicating there are instances where this iterative process has not occurred, please let me know and i can follow-up on that. >> the restaurants and hotels, it's not fair for a restaurant, if the operator, the practicing operator is not doing what they are supposed to be doing. i'm just thinking of the potential effects of other business where's a parking operator is not doing what they should be doing. >> unfortunately under the code we can't discuss a tax compliance issue with a third party about if something is happening, with this subcontractor. we're prevented from going and contacting someone else and saying by the way, do you know that they are having trouble? that would probably disadvantage them even more. >> okay. thank you. >> you are welcome.
>> any other commissioner comments? do we have any public comment on item no. 12? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? make a motion. >> i would like just -- i just feel concerned about not the operators because you do an amazing job and i understand the and the industry, but i'm trying to look out for the hotel and restaurant owners that some kind of measure if an existing operator is not going to be issued a bond or renewal that they know prior to the hearing date at spd, because i have been at hearing date where's they just shut the operator down. >> you could make a recommendation. >> so if we could make a recommendation prior to the
bonding. i never want the city to be exposed, but prior, maybe the parking operators could notify that we're not going to issue this at all. that gives the operator maybe some time to wind down so hotel and restaurant operators can say that we're out of industry for whatever reason. >> i think you are talking about two separate processes. so the police permitting process is separate from the treasurer-tax collector's office and the certificate of authority is a separate issue that we deal with. and what happens with the certificate of authority is as along as someone is in compliance, then they are eligible to be issued a certificate of authority. and so if someone out of compliance then they are not issued a certificate of authority. and so once they come into compliance, they are issued. it the police permit is a separate issue and that is handled by the permit officer and it's separate from our office.
we certainly are one of the referral agencies just like planning and fire and mta to make sure that there is something that is allowed and that if we're going to issue a permit, that we plan to issue a certificate of authority. but it's the police permitting process is a separate process from the certificate of authority and the bond. the bond is just something that is supposed to roll over from year-to-year and in effect from january 1 to december 31 and typically rolls over for most operators. so it's not necessarily the bond that is going to be -- it's potentially the permitting process >> okay. >> and i can't really speak to how they conduct the process. >> okay. then that is another issue then. so i guess i will move forward. >> you want to make the recommendation to approve as written? >> yes. make the recommendation to
approve as written. >> do we have a sec? >> second? >> irene? roll call? commissioners, we have a recommendation, motion by commissioner ortiz to recommend approval of item 12. roll call commissioner adams? >> yes. >> dooley? >> yes. >> white is absent. commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> [kwh-eurgs/] yee riley? commissioner yee riley? >> yes. >> commissioners that item passes 6-0. >> next, thank you item. >> next item 13 director's report. >> commissioners actually we have to be out of this room at 4:30.
we have four more minutes and so i would like to make a recommendation that items 13 through 17 that we carry forward to our december 10th commission meeting. >> does that have to be a motion? >> yes, let's make a motion. >> yes, let's make a motion to carry it through. >> i make a motion to carry items 13-17 through to the next [spw*-rbg/] sbc meeting. >> second. >> before we take that motion, can we just for the record ask for public comment? >> yes, can i have public comment? on moving items 13-17 to the next meeting? 13 to 17. seeing none,